The main legal point established is the proper assessment of disability, notional income, and application of legal precedents in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional In-charge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional In-charge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional Incharge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. She filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.94,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 20.09.2017.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.27,97,000/- as compensation to the appellant.

4. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the accident, the appellant suffered crush injuries on right lower limb and foot, crush degloving injury on the left ankle and foot with medical malleolus fracture on left side. The Medical Board examined the appellant and certified that she has suffered 80% disability. The right leg below knee of the appellant was amputated and due to the injuries, she could not do the work as she was doing earlier. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the disability at 100%. At the time of accident, the appellant was taking tuition and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and granted meagre amounts towards pecuniary loss. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital for more than 27 days. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is meagre. The Tribunal has not granted any amounts towards loss of amenities, loss of marital prospects and future medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are also meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the appellant has not proved that she suffered 100% disability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not meagre. The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent further submitted that the 2nd respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or through counsel.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record.

9. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellant that in the accident, she has suffered crush injuries on right lower limb and foot, crush degloving injury on the left ankle and foot with medical malleolus fracture on left side. Due to the injuries, the right leg of the appellant below knee was amputated. The Medical Board after examining the appellant, assessed and certified that she has suffered 80% di